Teacher-Student Relationship and its Affect on Achievement

By

Amy L. Gradecki

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Education

at

Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin

May 2012
 ii

Acknowledgements

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the

support and guidance of many people, to only some of whom it is possible to give

particular mention.

It is with immense gratitude and respect that I acknowledge the constant

support of Dr. Leslie McClain. Her advice and unsurpassed knowledge has been

an enormous help in my own writing journey. She has been available to me and

a listening ear for me for many years and without her encouragement and belief

in me, finishing this work would never have been possible. I have considered it

an honor and a gift to be able to work with her on this project. I am lucky to

consider her my mentor and will always know that she is my teacher.

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my mother. Her

support in so many ways made writing this work possible. Her work ethic is an

ideal to which I aspire. She is always on my side and is always available to help

me in any way. She is a dedicated educator, a loving mother and a devoted

grandmother and has been my role model in all ways.

My loving appreciation goes to my partner, Sarah. Her calm, peaceful

demeanor and easy approach to life has been essential in keeping me balanced

during this challenging and busy experience. Her certainty that I could

accomplish this gave me energy when I lacked it.

My sincere thanks goes out to my professor, Dr. Sandy Shedivy, who’s

knowledge and patience was essential in my writing.

 iii

A big shout out goes to the 2012 Carroll Pioneer Softball team, for

reminding me and encouraging me to keep writing!

 iv

Table of Contents

Approval Page
Title Page
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................. iv
Abstract ................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1

Problem ........................................................................................................... 4
Significance ..................................................................................................... 7
Purpose ........................................................................................................... 8
Research Question ....................................................................................... 15
Research Method .......................................................................................... 15
Limitations ..................................................................................................... 17
Delimitations.................................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 19

History ........................................................................................................... 19
Social Transformations ................................................................................. 21
Current State of Education ............................................................................ 24
Teacher-student Relationship ....................................................................... 30

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 44

Design ........................................................................................................... 44
Participants ................................................................................................... 46
Data collection............................................................................................... 47
Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 48
Purpose ......................................................................................................... 49

CHAPTER 4 FINIDNGS ..................................................................................... 51

Interview Results ........................................................................................... 51

Communication ........................................................................................ 52
Safety....................................................................................................... 55
Boundaries............................................................................................... 58
Caring ...................................................................................................... 63
Survey Results .............................................................................................. 68
College Curriculum Results ........................................................................... 72
Summary ....................................................................................................... 74
 v

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION............................................................................... 75

Limitations ..................................................................................................... 79
Implications ................................................................................................... 80

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 82

APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 87

Appendix A .................................................................................................... 87
Appendix B .................................................................................................... 88
 vi

Abstract

Teacher-Student Relationship and its Effect on Achievement

By

Amy L. Gradecki

Carroll University, 2012

Under the Supervision of Dr. Sandra Shedivy, Research Facilitator

This study examines the complex nature of the teacher-student relationship

and its possible effects on student achievement at the high school level. The

study explores both teachers’ and students’ lived experiences in relation to each

other and intends to better elucidate how that relationship positively or negatively

impacts the student’s whole school experience. This study also provides

implications for pre-service teacher curricula. Four main themes regarding the

teacher-student relationship emerged from teacher interviews. Communication,

safety, boundaries, and caring were subjects upon which all three interviewees

focused. The student survey revealed that the majority of high school students

cared about having positive relationships with their teachers, felt that their

relationship with their teachers affected their achievement, believed that their

relationship with their teachers affected their overall enjoyment of school and
 vii

believed that their teachers cared about them. This researcher’s findings initiate

the need for more thoughtful consideration of the nature and impact of the

teacher-student relationship as well as the potential for added curricula in pre-

service teacher programs.

 viii

List of Tables

Table 1………………………………………………………………………………….6
 Chapter One: Introduction

Oil is the world’s most precious commodity - or so most people would

think. People spend billions of dollars every day to obtain it. They risk their lives

digging for it through miles of watery ocean and through thousands and

thousands of feet of solid rock. Countries war over it. People die for it. Natural

environments are risked for it. Oil is elusive, rare, expensive, and complex to

acquire. Most people believe that it is the only source of energy that can sustain

life as it is known today. Petroleum is seen as essential for travel and for

business, for comfort at home, and for a million other every day uses. There is,

however, a free source of energy that exists every day. That is the sun. Its heat

and energy are free. It shines on every country and every individual in the world.

It is such an obvious alternative to oil, that this researcher believes it is

continually overlooked. The “oil” in education today is the sought after solution to

the lack of achievement ever present in the focus on education. The search for

this “oil” is the politics, the arguments, the new testing standards, the costly

studies, and the hard work of attempting to improve education. Hard work

though, is not always effective work. Politicians and educators are missing the

obvious. They are digging through the impenetrable rock of standardized tests

and the vast oceans of teacher quality measures. This is a costly venture. While

the politicians and administrators study and search for better ways to achieve the
 2

essential oil in education, the sun is shining brightly in each classroom every

single day. The “sun” is that teacher-student relationship. The energy in it could

power the necessary transformation of education, so that high achieving students

become the norm. This force that people overlook every day is warming,

energizing, invigorating and, best of all, free! It is there to grow what is needed.

Just like in nature, the sun is essential to the earth’s growth and abundance. The

same might be true for the teacher-student relationship and its impact on student

achievement. Student growth, or achievement, depends on the educators

shining on students, giving them warmth and sharing their fire and passion for

learning. The warmth of personal relationship is missing for many students in

every other aspect of their lives. The teacher-student relationship might be the

essential ingredient for students to thrive in school. It seems as though the most

essential aspects of learning that are ever present are also the most difficult to

describe, measure, and teach.

Images of schoolmasters slamming rulers on tops of knuckles and of girls

and boys sitting in corners call to mind an early American schoolhouse.

According to Finkelstein (as cited in Butchart, 1994), the teachers at that time

“relied on force and fear alone to maintain order.” This corporal punishment was

coupled with a moral hierarchy that began at the top with the teacher and ended

at the bottom with the most challenged students. According to Berger (as cited in

Butchart), this pecking order was solidified using both honor and shame to keep

individuals in their respective positions. In this ideology, the teacher never

moved to challenge or change students’ cemented positions, but instead held

 3

them as rule. Students learned by rote and did eventually become contributing

citizens in a fast growing country. The students who endured the corporal

punishment of the early colonial period became the inventors and scientists and

writers of the early 20th century. Without an in-depth study of achievement

covering all students the system did not seem to fail the students. But upon this

researcher’s reflection, the students who were attending school at that time had

the family structure, the economic background, the ethnic advantage and the

individual will to achieve in school, which created an unclear or partial picture of

student success in school. The under-reported, average individuals were either

disallowed from school completely, dropped out of school early, went into

apprenticeships, started their own businesses or found other ways to make ends

meet financially. Those individuals were not counted or considered when the

nation’s education system was publicly evaluated.

While industrialization and urban life began to evolve in the early 20th

century, the classroom also began to look different. The teacher continued to be

the authority figure in the classroom, but at some point corporal punishment

disappeared. Classrooms became a bit safer for students, but still, the teacher

was ultimately in charge and the students lacked voice. Prior to the Brown vs.

Board of Education ruling, only white students were assured an education that

guaranteed a quality teacher and a quality curriculum. Again, achievement

reflected more on a student’s societal position than on either his actual learning

potential or on the teacher’s effectiveness. Also, the research on achievement

only included those who were able to attend school, leaving out the marginalized
 4

and those who were discriminated against.

In the mid-20th century, beginning with the Brown vs. Board of Education

ruling in 1954, education underwent an upheaval. Public schools were suddenly

required to, in theory, provide and equalize education for all. This was a change

that reflected the sentiments of the civil rights movement which was on the

horizon and reflected new attitudes in society which did not end with education.

The Equal Rights Act of 1963 came on the heels of the women’s liberation

movement. Women had the right to vote. Society was changing. Families

began to look differently as well. Women headed into the workforce. In 1958,

the divorce rate was approximately 9 in every hundred marriages. By 1980, that

number spiked at almost 23 in every hundred marriages (Monthly Vital Statistics

Report, University of Maryland). These familial changes endlessly affect student

achievement and the need for a change in the learning environment.

Problem

Today, the lack of student achievement is a topic that resonates in both

the media and academia. Current literature outlines many reasons for a lack of

student achievement. Aikens and Barbarian (2008), attribute an achievement

gap in reading to family, demographic and neighborhood conditions, especially at

an early age. Rouse and Barrow (2006) studied family background’s influence

on achievement. They found that more advantaged parents had higher

educational expectations of their children than did parents of lower

socioeconomic status. They further determined that school quality is positively

correlated with a family background that is economically sound. Lower school

 5

quality is associated, then, with lower achievement. Sirin (2005) found that while

SES plays a role in predicting academic achievement, there are many other

variables including family structure, maternal attributes, peer’s skill level and

location. While there is much literature that proves that family background and

economy play major roles in student achievement, the politically popular

sentiment seems to reserve the responsibility of raising test scores and high

stakes test results for teachers. Teacher quality is held up as liable for student

achievement.

According to Boe and Shin (2005) the U.S. is reported to be average in

light of other industrialized nations in academic achievement. These findings

were the result of not just one survey about one specific subject but came from

many findings about many subjects. They found a major decline in student

achievement between grades 3 - 4 and 7 – 8. The organization of the school

system, financial resources, socioeconomic backgrounds and the academic

ability of the students all remain somewhat unchanged during that three to four

year period. Boe and Shin conclude that two other reasons may lie at the heart of

the decline in achievement. “One of two possible explanations is that the quality

of instruction declines in U.S. middle and secondary schools relative to that in

other nations. Another possibility is that students’ academic motivation

declines…perhaps as a by-product of an adolescent peer culture that distracts

students from academic learning” (p. 691-692). While it is not blatant, there is

suggestion that, again, teacher quality is responsible for the level of achievement

reached by students in the U.S. Since the teacher is thought to be responsible

 6

for the motivation of the student, which reflects on achievement, the teacher is in

control of that achievement.

The No Child Left Behind Act also burdens teachers with the responsibility

of raising test scores. In 1983, the authors of a government published document

called “A Nation at Risk” were highly concerned with the mediocrity in America’s

educational system. This criticism was, in part, aimed at the quality of instructors

in the system at that time. They were concerned because teachers were being

drawn from the lowest quadrants of high school graduates and college students.

The commission called to raise standards in the training and development of

teachers. That document shortly preceded the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002

(NCLB). This act demanded accountability and performance standards aimed at

increasing test scores through improving teacher quality. The NCLB Act

suggests that given high stakes testing, national standards, and better qualified

teachers, children are more likely to succeed in learning more in the classroom.

The NCLB Act had two goals regarding teacher quality. One was to

ensure that teacher education was focused on subject matter, so that teachers

would be qualified to teach the subjects. The second was to restructure the

avenues to becoming a teacher in the first place (Department of Education,

2004). While this legislation was aimed at improving student achievement

through improving teacher quality, one attribute of teaching is neglected in the

act and in all the meaningful literature on how teachers impact achievement.

While more testing might demand teachers to prepare their students differently

than they have in the past, it does not ensure that students will actually learn and
 7

achieve more. In a culture where test scores are the goal, individual student's

needs and teacher individuality are ignored. The teacher’s disposition,

combined with his rapport with students, essentially, the teacher-student

relationship, has a direct correlation to the achievement potential of the student

and might be that elusive attribute of education that might make a real difference

in test scores.

Students’ adjustment to school is related to the quality of student-teacher

relationships (Birch & Ladd, 1998). In another publication, according to Birch and

Ladd (as cited in Wentzel, 2002), this adjustment was characterized by goals to

be pro-social and socially responsible, mastery goal orientation for academic

tasks, and interest in schoolwork. Wentzel further states that students’ goals

were important in predicting classroom performance. This means that teachers,

who have the most control over the classroom environment, who are most in

command of the goals being set in the classroom, and who have the most

influence on the teacher-student relationship, are, in part, responsible for the

quality of a student's adjustment to school overall, which will undoubtedly impact

his level of achievement.

Significance

The knowledge of how the teacher student relationship impacts student

achievement and learning will not only help teachers currently in classrooms at

all levels, but it will provide insight into changing, or adding to, curriculum in

teacher preparation programs. With the current media focus on the trend that the

U.S. is falling behind in standardized achievement scores and student

 8

preparation (Isaacson, 2009) it is imperative that educators not only focus on

what is already known, but also investigate aspects of the learning environment

that have been traditionally outside the educational curriculum theory box. While

block scheduling, student behavior, teacher classroom organization and

management, lesson planning, and curriculum, has been studied, few studies

focus on how the teacher-student relationship impacts achievement. This is

potentially the missing ingredient for which economists, the media, the

government and educators might be searching. And while it is a component of

curriculum, it has not been studied as an integral element in achievement.

Three distinct Midwest universities’ teacher preparation course offerings

were examined and it was found that classes that focus on the teacher-student

relationship were neglected. While there is much focus on field work,

observations, multicultural sensitivity, testing, completion of standardized tests

(Praxis, for example), and many required methods classes in specific subject

areas, none were intended to alert the pre-service teachers to the importance

and impact of the teacher-student relationship.

Purpose

This researcher explored the nature of the teacher-student relationship

and its impact on student achievement. Nel Noddings (2005) explores the many

recent studies on educators and their quality. Teacher quality has been

measured with instruments that measure how hard teachers work, how many

hours are put into their daily tasks, how much they deem that they care.

However, Noddings suggests that a more authentic approach to whether or not

 9

teachers are of high quality would be to investigate whether or not there is a

culture of “relational caring” between the teacher and the student. This is the

relationship on which this researcher will focus. While teacher quality has been

spotlighted in recent educational research and in the media, the relationship

between the teacher and student has been neglected.

Historically, the teacher-student relationship was linear. Facts were

transferred from teacher to student and then the student was required to recall

those facts on tests in order to advance to the next grade level or to graduate.

This sort of relationship used to work in public education. However, times have

changed and public education has not changed with them, creating a frustrating

and demoralizing school environment for students. Sir Ken Robinson (2010), in

his animated video “Changing Education Paradigms” suggests that in order for

student achievement to improve there has to be a shift in the theoretical

foundation of education. He states that the old educational standards and

practices worked because students were given a promise that if they did well in

school, they could go to college, which would, in turn, land them a lucrative

career. Robinson further suggests that those promises are no longer valid or

believable, and even if they are remotely true, education marginalizes what

students feel is most important about them. This means that the old path to

students achieving in school is worn and useless. A new paradigm must be

found.

That paradigm might begin with the teacher-student relationship.

Robinson (2010) goes on to suggest that in a technological world, where

 10

information is obtained faster than anyone could have believed, students are

forced to sit still and take in the slow, fact driven teacher at the head of the class

(2010). They are not accustomed to this. Educators are not in tune with those

whom they educate. He goes on to say that schools are still organized in an

industrial mentality. “Schools are still organized on factory lines. Ringing bells,

separate facilities, specialized into specific subjects. We still educate children in

batches…by age group” (youtube video). Robinson speaks out against

standardization and against a production line mentality. Students are looked

upon as products that educators must fine tune and ship out, instead of as

individuals with individual needs and interests. This is where the teacher-student

relationship becomes vital.

The teacher-student relationship must move from a linear one, to a

reflexive one. It should be reciprocal, fluid and dynamic. Alcott (1830) wrote

about how important the teacher-student connection was to that child’s education

and character:

In an institution… much depends upon the character of the teacher. Moral

results can come only from moral means; and of these the teacher’s

agency is the chief. In him the infant minds should find the object of its

imitation and love. To a pure and affectionate heart, an unsophisticated

conscience, and elevated principles of action, the teacher should unite an

amiableness of temper, a simplicity of manner, and a devotion to his work,

which shall associate with it his happiness and his duty. His mind should

be well disciplined by various experience; To these should be added, as

 11

an indispensable requisite, a familiar acquaintance with the infant mind,

and a deep reverence for its author. Of mere learning he may have little

or much; an intelligent philanthropy, a desire to be useful are more

important requisites, and without which his other attainments will be of

little avail. Of patience and self-control, he should be a thorough and

constant disciple. (p.8)

His description of the teacher’s role for the student does not stand alone. He

also writes about how that teacher must connect to the students.

Formal precepts, abstract reasonings, and unintelligible instructions,

should here find no place; but interesting incidents, familiar descriptions,

approaching as nearly as possible to the circumstances and relations of

life, should embody no inconsiderable portion of the lessons of infancy.

All that connects the child with the pure, the good, and the happy around

him should be impressed deeply in his mind. From the opened volume of

nature, always perused with delight by childhood; from the varied records

of life and experience, and from the deeper fountains of the mind, and of

revelation, illustrations of truth and love may be drawn to expand the infant

soul, to elevate and enrich it with knowledge and piety, for the coming

years of its existence. Truth alone, in its divine unity and beauty, should

be presented. All lessons should reach the mind in an intelligible and

visible form. In this way alone can they find a response in the heart,

operate in conscience, and impart energy and life to knowledge and duty.

(p.10)
 12

Exploring the teacher’s essential connection with the student was not

looked on kindly in the history of education and there continues to be a culture of

fear in educators regarding too close of a connection with students. The

teachers either fear the students knowing their personal lives too intensely,

thereby reducing a mythical “respect” for the teacher or they fear the connection

might illuminate a lack of confidence in subject matter or classroom

management. In fact, the institution of public education continues to encourage a

disconnect between teacher and student. The classroom environment itself is

still set up to separate the teacher from the students. The teacher stands, the

students sit. The teacher reads from behind the barrier of a podium, while the

students hide their faces in books. The teacher speaks with students individually

but makes sure to have a giant desk between them, the door open, and another

student in the room as witness to the conversation. The physical disconnect is

coupled with an emotional chasm. Palmer (1998) writes about separateness in

many aspects of the school life:

How, and why, does academic culture discourage us from living

connected lives? How, and why, does it encourage us to distance

ourselves from our students and our subjects, to teach and learn at some

remove from our own hearts? On the surface, the answer seems obvious:

we are distanced by a grading system that separates teachers from

students, by departments that fragment fields of knowledge, by

competition that makes students and teachers alike wary of their peers...

(pp. 35-26)
 13

Palmer writes about a “broken paradox” that exists in the educational climate.

He says that the separation of head and heart only results “in minds that do not

know how to feel and hearts that do not know how to think” (p. 66). When

teachers don’t connect with students in a dynamic, loving way, students have

nothing to reflect, have nothing to learn from and therefore become disengaged,

disinterested and their achievement suffers. A connection must occur between

the teacher and the learner if achievement is to be significant. That connection

must go beyond transferring data from one to the other.

Alcott (1836) defines what, in his opinion, the teacher-student relationship

must be:

Instruction must be an Inspiration. The true Teacher…must inspire in

order to unfold. He must know that instruction is something more than

mere impression on the understanding. He must feel it to be a kindling

influence; that, in himself alone, is the quickening, informing energy; that

the life and growth of his charge preexist in him. He is to hallow and refine

as he tempts forth the soul. (p.44)

He is to put all the springs of Being into motion. And to do this, he must

be the personation and exampler of what he would unfold in his charge.

Wisdom, Truth, Holiness must have preexistence in him, or they will not

appear in his pupils….His agency is that of mind leaping to meet mind; not

of force acting on opposing force. (p.47)

This fluid exchange of relation between student and teacher is a valuable

methodology to use in order to increase achievement. Noddings (1992)

 14

characterizes this teacher-student relationship in terms of the transmission of

knowledge:

…subject matter cannot carry itself. Relation, except in very rare cases,

precedes any engagement with subject matter. Caring relations can

prepare children for all sorts of experiences and subject matters…a

faithfully caring relation allows children to select and affirm their own

interests after initial exposure. It lays heavy responsibilities on carer to

manage the trust placed in them wisely. We have to know when to push a

little and when to draw back. In many children’s lives, however, human

relations are simply irrelevant to the ‘know’ we profess to value. There is

no connection at all. (pp. 36-37)

There are many different kinds of teacher-student relationships. On one

end of the spectrum, there are the traditional teacher-centered relationships,

characterized by a teacher who is not interested in his students beyond their

understanding of the subject matter and their success on standardized tests.

The other end of the spectrum might be characterized by a student-centered

situation. This type of teacher-student relationship fosters a caring, nurturing

connectedness between student and teacher. Karen Paciotti (2010) writes about

a “caring behavior management model.” Paciotti describes a teacher who uses

positive reinforcement, a joyful classroom theme, encouragement, and praise, all

embodied by the teacher’s demeanor, expression and vocal inflections. This

type of relationship would be characterized by several different aspects including

knowledge of typically private information like family structure, hobbies,

 15

spirituality, goals, extracurricular activities, etc. No matter on what end of the

continuum the teacher-student relationship lies, it is ever present. No one can

deny the need for human relationships in all aspects of life. People physically

heal more quickly when family and friends surround them, babies thrive more

fully when they are in positive, loving relationships with their care-givers, and

employees’ morale is much better when there is a climate of collaboration within

the company. Why do educators feel compelled to ignore the importance of

personal relationship between the teacher and student? The relationships that

this researcher sought to study are not one dimensional, but are flowing

relationships between students and teachers. Though this relationship may be

elusive to define and difficult to describe and quantify, this researcher intended to

better elucidate what are the attributes of this relationship and how it impacts

student achievement.

Research Questions

Is there a difference in student achievement, enjoyment and learning

when there is a significant personal relationship between the teacher and the

student compared to a more traditional authoritarian style of teaching? What are

the attributes of a positive and engaging teacher-student relationship? Would

pre-service teachers benefit from instruction in cultivating a positive teacher-

student relationship?

Research Method

This researcher used a qualitative approach to the question of the impact

that teacher student relationships have on achievement. There were three

 16

aspects to the qualitative design. These were personal interviews, a survey of

freshmen and sophomore college students, and an examination of local pre-

service teacher curricula. The interviews were based on open-ended queries so

that the respondents could be engaged more fully and probed more deeply to

reach beyond their initial responses. The personal interviews were conducted

with three high school teachers. The teachers were chosen purposefully

because the researcher knew viable participants who were available in the time

allotted. The interviews were conducted at a mutual place, to avoid the feeling of

control on the part of the researcher. The intent was to make each respondent

comfortable and able to answer questions freely. The interviews were recorded

and transcribed, so the researcher was not tempted to filter or alter the

responses. After all responses were transcribed a second interview was held

with each respondent so that they could have the chance to change, correct or

add to their answers. After the interviews of all three participants were

conducted and transcribed, the results were coded and themed through analysis.

These themes, weaved together, formed the foundation of the findings and

results of this study.

The survey aspect of the study was given out to all 1200 freshmen and

sophomore students at a local university. These students were all surveyed, in

order to reach valid and authentic results. Age, gender, and class subject were

completely disregarded. The survey was based on a Likert type scale which

included five questions. The answer choices were assigned a point value which

was then analyzed. In addition to those, one open ended question as well as a
 17

general question about their grade point averages were also included. That

question revolved around the teacher-student relationship and the students’

feelings about its effect on their learning in high school. The results of the survey

were coded, analyzed and merged with the results from the interviews to

contribute to the conclusions of this study.

This researcher also generally surveyed the curriculum of three local

collegiate teacher preparation programs. After data was compiled using the

worldwide web, the researcher compared and compiled a general analysis of the

common curriculum for pre-service teachers. This was to triangulate the study

intending to be able to comment on the potential benefits of changing or adding

to the current curricula, which is this study’s rationale.

Limitations

The sample of students was one limitation to the conclusions of this study.

The students who chose to respond to the survey were most likely students who

had enjoyed high school, who had a positive feeling about most aspects of the

school and who were motivated enough to respond and turn in the survey. That

may have clouded the results because the answers were not genuinely from a

random sample. These students were also from similar socioeconomic and

ethnic backgrounds. The most major limitation of the study came in the

authenticity of the responses given by the participants in the interviews. They

may have felt that responding one way or another reflected on their quality as

teachers or on their standard of excellence as students. The college age

respondents might not have taken the survey seriously and just written answers
 18

to make sure it was completed which would negatively impact the analysis of the

surveys. Other limitations might have included the respondents changing their

minds over time, or any of the respondents deciding to drop out of the study all

together.

Delimitations

The delimitations of the study were simple. This researcher intentionally

chose teachers and students who are considered to be quality instructors and

relatively successful students. This researcher purposefully chose a sample of

respondents whom she knew and could easily communicate with. Researcher

bias could affect the answers given in interviews, simply by choosing people who

think most like the researcher. The delimitation in the sample continues because

the respondents will all be similar in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age, gender

and live in the same demographic. This might affect the generalizability of the

study, but not this particular study’s conclusions.

 19

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The relationship between teacher and student in the classroom is difficult

to explain and elusive to define, however, it is ever-present and should be

considered when revising curricula or attempting to improve student

achievement. Education, and more specifically, the teacher-student relationship,

has gone through many theoretical changes. The historical traditions of the

authoritarian classrooms of the colonial times gave way to changes in classroom

management styles that are still occurring today. The struggles and impact of

societal and political movements, the loss of top position in the global education

battle ground and, in the current climate of high stakes testing, the responsibility

given to teachers for losing and/or maintaining achievement levels have all

contributed to the current state of education in the United States. It is a situation

that is muddled with political controversy and an environment that seems to leave

the student out of the main focus of the institution. Educational theorists and

heads of educational movements have recently investigated a new idea in the

classroom which might impact the deteriorating achievement of U.S. students

and might also impact the staggering achievement gap in this country. This new

theory is defined by many as a culture of “care,” and is a reflection of the teacher-

student relationship. In this review of the literature, the following topics will be

discussed: a) the history of education, b) social transformations, c) the current

state of education, and d) the teacher-student relationship.

History

The beginnings of education in the U.S. were religious in nature and strictly a
 20

one way distribution of facts. Butchart (1994) describes a colonial period school

environment in which the students were in many one on one situations with their

schoolmasters, but those meetings were scarce and the rest of the time students

went unsupervised. The masters reminded students of their subservience with

physical punishment and instilled notions of honor and shame. Butchart further

states that in the 1900’s, Joseph Lancaster’s model replaced corporal

punishment in the classroom with a system of rewards which included

advancement. This approach stimulated the competition now common in

schools. Lancaster (as cited in Butchart, 1995) was known to support teacher-

directed humiliation, which eliminated the students’ already fragile dignity. This

model began to instill an attitude of student success, but only at the expense of

those who failed.

At the same time (Butchart, 1995) a reform was taking place in New

England which meant to create in students an internal authority. This internal

authority was based on guilt and fear, and relied on a devised conscience, which

is a behaviorism tool intended to achieve an orderly classroom. Obedience

arose from the fear of the teacher withdrawing emotional support. Similar to

Lancaster’s model, but instead of the threat of removal of material rewards, the

teacher threatened to be disappointed and remove a positive feeling for the

student. Emerson E. White (1894) suggested that discipline in education was

strictly to teach moral lessons and anything that challenged the ethical goals of

the school were not welcomed (1894). Less than a decade later, William Bagley
 21

(1907) wrote about 19th century discipline’s purpose as strictly to prepare the

student for a life in the new industrial society.

Neither of these models showed any kind of improvement in achievement.

There were so few schools and even less funding available, achievement was

closely related to socioeconomic status and those who could afford private tutors

did well; they learned and succeeded in the educational system. While the

educational system swayed between the colonial period’s teacher-centered

philosophy and the progressive era’s child-centered models, students’

achievement continued to wane. Regarding the 20th century, Butchart (1995)

cites many attempts at creating a culture of discipline in the classroom so that

students would be able to learn better and come out of school more prepared to

contribute in society. “-report cards, age grading, promotion or retention” for

example were in addition to new techniques like Carnegie units; consolidated

schools; sanctioned extra-curriculum, with its requirements for adequate grades

and deportment; and … compulsory attendance laws” (p. 12).

Social Transformations

Along with the many theoretical shifts in discipline, education was

changing and struggling right in stride with a society that was in transformation.

The civil rights movement was the first to impact education. Prior to 1954, black

and white students were educated separately, and were supposed to have been

educated equally, because of the Plessy v. Ferguson case from 1896.

In 1952, plaintiffs from three separate states contended that segregated

public schools did not prove an equal education for all students, and never could
 22

be made to provide an education equal to that of white students. The opinion of

the Supreme Court was that “segregation of white and colored children in public

schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children (and) is usually

interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority

affects the motivation of a child to learn. …therefore deprives (them) of some of

the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system. The

Supreme Court justices concluded that “in the field of public education, the

doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.” Because of this new ruling, the

U.S. public education system was radically changed. All students would be

educated together. While this was a major step in the right ethical direction, it

created a complex situation in the classroom, for both teachers and students.

Neither was prepared for it, and it impacted strategies and focus in each

classroom.

This new attitude toward society was also reflected in gender equality.

Women already had the right to vote and in 1964 it became illegal to discriminate

based on gender in the workplace. This alone began to change the traditional

American family. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 703, made it unlawful for

an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise

to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,

conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual’s race, color,

religion, sex, or national origin” (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). This

new law allowed women the opportunity to get into the workplace, and out of the

constraints of being the sole caregiver to children. While this new law attempted
 23

to equalize the genders regarding employment opportunities, it also began to

change the face of the family unit. Prior to this, children came home from school

to their mothers. After this, many children arrived home from school to empty

houses and were left to their own devices to work on homework.

Some argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began the decline of the

American family. Popenoe (1993) believes that “the family (is) an institution in

decline and (that) this should be a cause for alarm” (p. 527). Popenoe writes that

families have been changing throughout history, but there have been

astronomical changes in the family in the 30 years prior to his writing. In general,

Popenoe proposes that the civil rights activism of the 1960’s propelled women

out of the house and into the workplace and, in turn, brought about significant

movement away from a child-centered family life. Initially, he describes the

different philosophies of the definition and responsibilities of “family.” It had gone

from a solid designation of a husband, wife and their children to a hotly debated

description. This gray definition has posed difficulty in what responsibilities

family members carry out. Popenoe goes on to describe several issues related

to the decline of families, however he focuses on the idea that “One family type

that has replaced the intact family of biological parents …is the stepparent family.

(And)…the fastest growing new family type is the single-parent family (almost

90% headed by women) (1993, p. 531).” This statistic is the result of other

statistical data that includes divorce rates. In 1960, 9 marriages in every 1000

ended in divorce. By 1988 the rate was 133 in 1000, nearly fifteen times what it

was less than thirty years prior (Propenoe, 1993). While this statistic does in fact
 24

speak to, if not a decline in the American family, at least a major change in it, it

also communicates a stumbling block for children who are attempting to be

successful in school, where before there was none. This “decline” in the

American family is commonly construed as the source for the decline in public

school student achievement.

Current State of Education

The social movements and the changes in educational strategies

throughout U.S. history have made an impact in the education system present

today. It has become a source of political squabbles and social incongruity. The

battles are over money allocations, implementations of new strategies, and

blame over deteriorating achievement scores.

Palmer (1998) writes about an educational system that holds in high

esteem facts, subjects and scores. Currently, these are the blocks on which the

successes of a teacher, a student, or a school are built. Palmer explains:

In this culture, objective facts are regarded as pure, while subjective

feelings are suspect and sullied. In this culture, the self is not a source to

be tapped but a danger to be suppressed, not a potential to be fulfilled but

an obstacle to be overcome. (p. 18)

Palmer is braving an educational territory that has barely been travelled. He is

suggesting that people, feelings, and authenticity from the teacher are as equally

important as textbooks, subject matter, and grades. “We dismiss the inward

world” (p.19). He believes that schools will fail until politicians and educators
 25

honor the inner beings that are present in the classroom – both the teachers’ and

the students’.

Even the Dalai Lama (1999), in writing on the state of global education, is

concerned about the absence of some aspect of spirituality in education. He

says that society has slowly forgotten about human values like kindness and

compassion and has, instead, turned to science and math for solutions to

problems. He notes that while society has been inundated with wealth of

materials and advancements in technology, it is still a world in trouble. He

suggests that something is clearly missing:

From my rough impression of the Western educational system, although it

is very impressive to see the high standard of the facilities, the many

material resources, and the perfection of so many different aspects of

intellectual development, the thing that seems to be lacking is the

dimension of enhancing and developing the heart. The questions we must

ask are how to promote these other human values. How to teach the

development of a good heart? (p. 87)

The Dalai Lama questions the value of things in place of the value of teaching

relations with others. Teaching about positive, caring relationships requires that

teachers and students engage in those kinds of relationships and become

relationships that students can use as examples. The foundation of these

relationships creates an environment in which traditional subject learning is the

result of learning about kindheartedness and true happiness. It will instill in

 26

students that the reason for learning about math, or science or technology is

ultimately to “take care of others – the larger community” (p. 86).

In an effort to re-establish the U.S. as an academic leader in the world,

George Bush (2002), with his “No Child Left Behind Act” (NCLB) responded to

concerns regarding U.S. achievement falling behind other counties. These

concerns began in 1983 and were acknowledged in “A Nation at Risk,” which

defined the mediocre nature of the American educational system (The National

Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). NCLB required that publicly

funded schools administer a standardized test and if students performed well

enough, the funding would remain intact. If, however, the students did not

perform well enough, funding would be eradicated. Another provision of the

NCLB was that all stakeholders in the schools were being held more

accountable. This meant that teachers were being held responsible for their

students’ achievement scores (NCLB, 2002). Teacher quality became a main

goal for the NCLB. The Department of Education focused on two avenues to

improve teacher quality. One was subject matter. The focus was to make sure

that teachers were knowledgeable about their content areas. The other was

teacher preparation. This concentrated on the path pre-service teachers take to

obtain their teaching licenses (2004). While these strategies have potential

positive outcomes for improving achievement, there could be additional factors in

improving achievement.

These achievement issues have been attributed to many factors. Fram,

Miller-Cribbs and Horn (2007) recommended using SES data in addition to other
 27

research to determine students’ low performance. McDowell, Lonigan, and

Goldstein (2007) in their study of youth in the South, demonstrated that there is a

relationship between SES and student performance. They concluded that scores

in language and development were significantly less in students with a low SES

compared with students in a higher SES. Their findings indicated that children in

low SES homes were not exposed to culture and reading and therefore

negatively affected their educational beginnings, leaving them behind their higher

SES counterparts. Aikens and Barbarian (2008) found that, basically, as a result

of other environmental issues like single-parent families and mothers with lower

levels of educational achievement, students attended high-poverty schools.

These low SES classrooms struggle significantly because their teachers have

fewer years of experience than other schools, they are less adequately equipped,

and have higher proportions of students who are behind the average in reading

levels. This means that complex situations involving SES definitely weigh

negatively on achievement.

. While understanding that SES and the underlying issues associated with it

or the causes for it definitely affect student achievement is important, the political

climate in the U.S. demands a solution. The research points to the U.S.

dramatically falling behind other countries in terms of achievement.

Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, expressed concern over the

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results from 2009.

Today’s PISA results show that America needs to urgently accelerate

student learning to remain competitive in the global economy of the 21st

 28

century. More parents, teachers, and leaders need to recognize the reality

that other high-achieving nations are both out-educating us and out-

competing us. Our educational system has a long way to go to fulfill the

American promise of education as the great equalizer.

Being average in reading and science -- and below average in math -- is

not nearly good enough in a knowledge economy where scientific and

technological literacy is so central to sustaining innovation and

international competitiveness. The results are especially troubling because

PISA assesses applied knowledge and the higher-order thinking skills

critical to success in the information age. (p.1)

In a New York Times article, Dillon (2010) writes about how Shangai, and

many other countries are scoring higher than the U.S. on PISA. He quotes Arne

Duncan, secretary of education who stated, “I know skeptics will want to argue

with the results, but we consider them to be accurate and reliable, and we have

to see them as a challenge to get better. The United States came in 23rd or

24th in most subjects. We can quibble, or we can face the brutal truth that we’re

being out-educated” (p. 1). Dillon additionally explains that the U.S. came in 17th

in reading scores and well below average in math.

Boe and Shin (2005) write about many reasons for the perception that the

U.S. is falling behind other countries academically. First, they surmise that while

the U.S. scores are basically average, U.S. citizens expect more and expect U.S.

students to be “first in the world academically,” and to be average seems like a

failure. Second, Boe and Shin reason that statistics are easy to manipulate and
 29

use to one’s own benefit. So, people might be using specific results and leaving

others out, only to enhance their own arguments. Ultimately, these authors

define an environment in the U.S. that is very different from other countries to

which it is being compared. Most importantly, the U.S. is much less homogenous

than other countries and the ethnic minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics,

had scores that negatively impacted the total U.S. achievement data.

Regardless of the U.S. position on the global educational scale, its educational

system is definitely in need of modification and is in a time of struggle.

Robinson (2010) describes an educational situation that is in dire need of

change. Here he describes the problems simplistically:

How do we educate our children so that they can take their place in the

economies of the 21st century? And, how do we educate our children so

they have a sense of cultural identity? The problem is they’re trying to

meet the future by doing what they did in the past and on the way they are

alienating millions of kids who don’t see any purpose in going to school.

Robinson offers the solution of teachers trying to awaken students to what they

have inside of themselves. However, in order to do that, educators must reach

the students and the students must be in an environment where they feel

comfortable enough to allow the teacher to connect with them.

It is clear that since Bush (2002) enacted the NCLB education in the U.S.

has not improved. Because teachers are continually under more and more

pressure, economically, socially, and politically to improve their students’

achievement many theorists, researchers and educators have sought new ways
 30

to think about student achievement. All the focus on the business aspects of

schools, traditional curriculum, and achievement scores leaves little room to

attend to one of the details in school that is ever-present but most often

disregarded. This element in the classroom is hard to define, but many

researchers are delving into the phenomenon of the teacher-student relationship

and its impact on student achievement.

Teacher-Student Relationship

Since NCLB, the teacher has been given ultimate responsibility for and

has been blamed for the achievement problems in the U.S. Palmer (1998)

explains that teachers, if they must take responsibility, must also be given the

freedom to embrace different strategies than are the norm:

Teachers make an easy target, for they are such a common species and

so powerless to strike back. We blame teachers for being unable to cure

social ills that no one knows how to treat; we insist that they instantly

adopt whatever “solution” has most recently been concocted by our

national panacea machine; and in the process, we demoralize, even

paralyze, the very teachers who could help us find our way.

In our rush to reform education, we have forgotten a simple truth: reform

will never be achieved by renewing appropriations, restructuring schools,

rewriting curricula, and revising texts if we continue to demean and

dishearten the human resource called the teacher on whom so much

depends. (Nothing) will transform education if we fail to cherish – and

challenge – the human heart that is the source of good teaching. (p. 3)
 31

The teacher-student relationship is one aspect of the educational

environment that has existed since the beginning of public education, but has

been overlooked as one of the essential elements in student enjoyment in

school, and therefore, achievement. Alcott’s publications (dated 1799-1888)

were some of the first to delve into the importance of the teacher-student

relationship. He had many ideas that weren’t in the mainstream of the thinkers of

his time. Henry David Thoreau (1892) said of Alcott, “He has no venture in the

present. But though comparatively disregarded now, when his day comes, laws

unsuspected by most will take effect, and masters of families and rulers will come

to him for advice” (p. 415). Alcott (1830) was adamant that something other than

merely transferring facts to the students was important. He spoke of the teacher

being responsible for the students’ excitement about learning:

The mere communication of knowledge, though an important, is, by no

means, the essential purpose of infant discipline. This is chiefly, the

awakening and exciting the mind; the formation of its habits; the

preliminary discipline of its faculties for the independent search and

acquisition of truth. (p.24)

And this “awakening” comes through an interpersonal relationship between the

teacher and student. This relationship can be construed in many ways, but

singularly it is, according to Alcott, a fluid one, instead of the traditional linear

transmission of subject details. This fluidity streams from the teacher to the

student and back, in ways that go beyond matters of fact and into matters of

personal connection.
 32

In all things the teacher should strive to be, what to the apprehension of

the children they ought to become. By the kindness of his manner; his

love of truth and right above all things; by his obedience to the rules of

action which he presents; by appeals to the dictates of conscience,

principle and revelation; by patient, constant forbearance; by the desire in

all things to improve and bless; by illustrations of virtue, in stories, in

pictures, in descriptions; by remarks on infant character, motives, habits,

the teacher will endeavor to reach their minds, impress duty on their

conscience, and lead them to its practice…The reflection of his character

will open the deeper fountains of their nature, and prepare them for the

knowledge of themselves (p.21)

Alcott (1830) delves not only into what should be taught but how the

student should be treated by the teacher:

Kindness and affection must form a primary element of his

character. It is these which will awaken kindred emotions in the children,

and become the chief power of his influence. Love and love only ‘can be

with him ‘the loan for love.’ Cheerfulness, complacency, hope and

happiness, dwelling in his bosom, will find way, and in time, take

residence in theirs. By the expression of these, in conversation, by voice,

manner, countenance; by frequent appeals to the best affections, drawn

from the lessons and incidents of the school-room, from stories, and

descriptions without exciting the passions, the teacher will awaken and

purify the infant faculties, and form those habits and dispositions, which
 33

prepare the heart for the reception of virtue and happiness. The

affectionate nature, thus kept in a state of activity, becomes invigorated,

elevated and improved. (p. 20)

This relationship begins with the teacher. Teachers, then, must possess

qualities that enhance the students’ potential to allow those teachers to reach

them. Palmer (1998) says, “We are obsessed with manipulating externals

because we believe that they will give us some power over reality and win us

some freedom from its constraints. ….That is why we train doctors to repair the

body but not to honor the spirit; clergy to be CEO’s but not spiritual guides;

teachers to master techniques but not to engage their students’ souls” (p. 19).

Teachers have rarely been encouraged to cultivate their personal relationships

with their students. Clearly, this cold view of professionalism has not been

effective.

Paciotti (2010), an educator and researcher, has written extensively on the

increased pressure on teachers to use traditional rote learning so that all

students can succeed on standardized tests. This strategy in teaching

disregards the impact that the teacher’s disposition can have on the classroom

environment, and the students’ potential for high achievement. Paciotti’s

research examines a “caring behavior management” model (CBM):

The first attribute of CBM is a caring, joyful spirit. Through the joyful use

of social reinforcers, such as encouragement and praise, teachers must

show, by way of positive behaviors such as body language and demeanor,

that they value their students’ efforts and believe in student success.
 34

Teachers must celebrate students’ efforts with joy, using appropriate facial

expressions and voice inflections. (p. 13)

Paciotti describes a proven environment that improves achievement. The

teacher must connect to the students, positively and personally. She writes of a

“caring, joyful spirit” in the teacher. These interpersonal characteristics are

essential to an encouraging and constructive relationship between the teacher

and student.

The following researchers reveal that there are many characteristics in a

teacher’s disposition that are welcomed by students and can potentially open the

door to positive relationships between the two. Wayne and Youngs (2003) linked

student success to the qualities of teachers who were labeled effective. Berry

(2002) made clear that not only does content knowledge have a bearing on

effectiveness, effective teachers also “know how and why their students learn” (p.

2). All these studies reveal that certain characteristics in teachers can enhance

the relationship that students have with them. The achievement levels of these

teachers’ students are high. Crosnoe, Johnson and Elder (2004) discovered, in

their study on intergenerational bonding, that teacher-student relationships were

predictors of both academic outcomes and disciplinary standing. They found that

strong intergenerational bonding indicated a higher academic achievement.

Again, the connection between the teacher and the student weighs on the

potential for higher achievement.

Thompson, Ransdell and Rousseau (2005) looked at the teaching

dispositions of effective, urban elementary teachers. These teachers were

 35

recommended by their principals. Their study revealed five characteristics of

effective teachers which were a teacher-centered classroom, consistently

followed rules and procedures, good communication with students, good

classroom management, and the use of repetition with the students. The

researchers were surprised by these findings, because they were convinced that

a constructivist classroom was much more effective. Interestingly, Thompson,

Ransdell and Rousseau justified the results that conflicted with their own

expectations:

From the interviews, we concluded that the teachers believed that their

students could learn, were capable of expressing their ideas, and were

capable of academic success. They valued the students as individuals,

and believed that the students deserved respect from themselves as the

teacher and from their classmates. (p.29)

The idea that a teacher’s effectiveness ultimately results from that teacher’s

relationship to the student and her beliefs about that student personally, drives

the student’s success regardless of classroom procedures or delivery of subject

matter. This study was significant, because it revealed that certain tangible

characteristics of teachers that were formerly thought to have a great effect on

achievement were really second to less tangible qualities. Thompson, Ransdell

and Rousseau sought a deeper significance in their results. They realized that a

teacher’s intention with her students is much weightier than is her classroom

management or subject delivery style.

 36

Another researcher in this group, Boex (2000), studied the attributes of

effective economics teachers. He stated that the reason for doing the study was

due to “a broad consensus within the education literature” that recognized certain

attributes in an instructor led him to be more effective. These attributes included

“…clarity of the instructor’s lectures, the course’s organization, the degree to

which the instructor motivates students, and the instructor’s success in building

an interpersonal rapport with the students” (p. 211). Boex’s study delved more

deeply into attributes that make teachers more effective based on student

evaluations of instructors. While student surveys are, at times, unreliable, the

breadth of this study (over 1500 student surveys collected) lends itself to some

significant conclusions. Boex found that two characteristics, organizational skills

and clarity, were the most significant in effectiveness ratings. Other qualities

such as student-teacher interaction were also significant. The students’ survey

results not only were informative about which attributes they find important to

teacher effectiveness, but in considering further, they demonstrated that students

have an opinion at all regarding teachers’ impact on the students’ learning. It is

also interesting to note that this study was conducted in one particular subject

area which might influence the results. The students’ opinions about how they

interacted with their teachers and how they view their teachers’ effectiveness

give meaning to a fluid relationship. This study signifies that the teacher-student

relationship is not one way, but flows back and forth between the teacher and

student and tends to admonish the traditions and expectations of that

relationship.
 37

Students’ conceptions about their teachers are only one part of the

teacher-student relationship that has been explored in the research literature.

There is also the other side of the relationship which is how teachers feel about

their students. Mercer and DeRosier (2010) conducted a study focused on

teacher preferences for certain students over others as well as students’

perceptions of those preferences. The study suggested that students are very

aware of which of them teachers prefer. This study demonstrated that there was

significant correlation between how students thought their teachers felt about

them and how much students felt supported by or in conflict with their teachers

and further how well they did in that particular teacher’s class. This reciprocal

relationship is important to understand, since it is this relationship that potentially

affects the students’ school experience.

Arnove (2010), chancellor’s professor emeritus of educational leadership

and policy studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, wrote an article on the

topic of what makes a master teacher. The article quoted many gifted students’

ideas about what influenced their positive regard for their teachers.

Personalizing instruction, providing shortcuts, caring and loving, generosity of

spirit, creating unique students, being self-critical and creating a community of

practice all add to the title “master teacher.” Arnove laments that:

Recent policy trends in teacher education emphasize subject matter

competence almost exclusively, to the detriment of preparing teachers

with the pedagogical knowledge needed to effectively communicate

content. The role of teacher education in universities is downplayed in

 38

favor of on-site preparation. Courses in psychology, philosophy, history,

sociology, and anthropology…are considered by many state authorities to

be irrelevant to teachers. (p. 50)

Arnove recognizes the need for teachers to do more than simply transmit facts to

their students and increase test scores. In other words, it is important to consider

the relationship between the student and teacher, in addition to and beyond the

subject matter.

The essential qualities and roots of the teacher-student relationship have

been most deeply explored by the following researchers. These individuals

probed not only the teacher-student relationship itself, but also analyzed the

spiritual means by which teachers come know the importance of their own

selves, their own work and how they can really connect these important lessons

to their students. Their inquiries have positioned educators to fully realize all

they are capable of with their students. The strategies these researchers explore

go far beyond the typical classroom management approaches that are common

in the educational field. They suggest, instead, that the teacher and the student

must meet – somewhere in the middle to achieve the learning.

Intrator (2004) described a classroom situation where students were

totally engaged and found “genuine meaning (p.20)” in their school experiences:

Teachers who connected with students told poignant personal stories,

conveyed their passions, and expressed emotion and vulnerability. …

Students responded when teachers shared their own love affair with

learning and scholarship. … The [students] I spent time with wanted their
 39

teachers to know them as people. They wanted teachers to understand

their experiences, interests, aspiration, needs, fears, and idiosyncrasies.

Feeling known, understood, and appreciated matters. (p. 23)

Intrator observed the benefits of a close relationship between teachers and

students. And realized that students, in the face of a changing family life and a

complex society, need to be cared for.

Ellerbrock and Kiefer (2010) also recognized the need for a “community of

care” in the school setting. “Research has indicated that the presence of high-

quality teacher-student relationship (e.g., relationships characterized by high

levels of trust, care, and respect) and emotional and cognitive support are critical

for the positive development of students” (p.393). Without that positive

development students have little chance of high achievement. Ellerbrock and

Kiefer studied a freshman program that focused on creating a community to

which the students could belong and a personalized learning environment in

which to study. That environment of caring not only fueled students’ desires to

learn but also fostered a feeling of responsibility to recreate that experience for

upcoming generations.

The caring relationship between teacher and student is also emphasized

in Collier’s (2005) article An Ethic of Caring: The Fuel for High Teacher Efficacy.

She asserts that:

…the keystone of teaching is the relationship developed between the

teacher and the student. The relational base built upon friendship and

trust stimulates the students’ attention and commitment to instructional

 40

tasks. Caring facilitates a sense of connection from which spring

countless opportunities for learning. Through a process of mutual sharing,

the teacher and students become one. (p. 353)

Here, she acknowledges the importance of that relationship and its impact on

student learning and achievement. Collier eloquently states:

The relational nature of caring provides a reciprocal reinforcement of well-

being which nurtures and sustains positive interactions between teacher

and student. …In essence, caring is the fuel for teacher efficacy working

in tandem to create the stable, capable and committed teaching force

required for the effective education of our nation’s children. (p.358)

Caring is a common theme in the writings of Nel Noddings. In many of her

works, she quotes a French philosopher, Simone Weil, who stresses that one

question should guide relationships. “‘What are you going through?’” Noddings

believes that the essential characteristic of the caring relationship is that there

has to be total engrossment. Bergman (2004), in his article on Nel Noddings,

explains that Noddings defines a caring relationship as one like a mother’s

“responding to the cry of her infant.” The teacher, then, must empty herself of

attention to her own situation, and totally allow the student’s need to become her

own. He also asserts that this caring is not only one-way, but that while there is

a care-giver, there also must be a reception of that care by the “intended cared-

for” (p. 151).

Noddings has been a pioneer in education and has written extensively

about the responsibilities of schools and teachers extending beyond the subject
 41

matter and classroom management. She treads a dangerous path by putting

more responsibility on teachers in the current political and social climate, giving

them not only academic content to pass on to their students but also a sense of

morality. She bases this responsibility in the caring relationship between

teacher and student and all that relationship can do for the educational

community.

Noddings (1992) asserts that schools, parents, and educators should not

just focus on method in terms of educating youth because “there is no such

method” (p.8). According to Noddings, the traditional method of focusing on

curriculum, classroom management and student behavior, and instructional

strategy, which, in turn, “…make(s) the individual teacher, the individual student,

and their relationship irrelevant to the success of instruction, …is posited as the

primary goal of schooling” (p. 10). However, Nodding suggests that, instead of

that traditional approach, educational entities should create an environment in

which caring is the focus. In other words, teachers should establish a sense of

caring for their students. Noddings proclaims that in order to actually care one

has to be fully engrossed in the other, be totally in tune with the cared-for and be

completely attentive.

To say that the soul empties itself of all its own contents in order to receive

the other describes well what I mean by engrossment. I do not mean

infatuation, enchantment, or obsession but a full receptivity. The

engrossment or attention may last only a few moments and it may or may
 42

not be repeated in future encounters, but it is full and essential in any

caring encounter. (p.16)

Thus, Noddings indicates that the relationship between teacher and student goes

beyond the books, the classrooms, the rules. A culture of caring in a school is far

from the tradition of power and hierarchy. Noddings indicates that the approach

she is advocating is one that is not “anti-intellectual” but instead a vehicle with

which young students can use to travel through the myriad of experiences that

education offers them.

Noddings aso suggests that a caring relationship with their teachers

should be a close but unequal one. Students go to teachers for help. Teachers

really see and hear their students and help them. “To do this effectively requires

the creation and maintenance of a trusting relationship” (p. 107). The students’

responsibility in the relationship is to be “…recipients of care (and) respond to

their teachers’ efforts” (p. 107).

Noddings is attempting to delve deeply into the notion that educators

should be preparing students, through example, how to become moral, caring

individuals.

It is essential that children be cared for and that they recognize and

respond to care. With relations of trust and care well established, they

may be prepared to care in the wider world of casual acquaintances,

strangers, and aliens. (p.110)

This concept is a powerful one. Teachers being held responsible for teaching

students to be caring individuals, in essence by caring for those students is a

 43

deeply spiritual endeavor. Teachers need to know themselves and be able to be

open to knowing their students. The educator is responsible for building a

community in the classroom and school that is a caring one, which demonstrates

social justice, and which enhances the students’ experiences through emotional

support and a loving view of their situations.

The research tends to fall away at this point. While there is a lot of

information about what a teacher’s disposition should be and how that affects the

students, and about what students want in a teacher, there is little to be said

about how to cultivate a caring relationship between teacher and student, a

relationship that is being deemed by many as essential. There is room for

researchers to find out how teachers learn to see their students, how they learn

to care for them and how their students react to be cared-for.

 44

Chapter 3: Methodology

Low test scores, achievement gaps, and the United States consistently

falling behind other countries in student preparedness are pervasive problems in

education. Researchers have typically found that low test scores can be

attributed to income level, minority status, and ethnicity. Despite that research,

teachers are routinely held responsible for solving these problems. And while

that seems unfair, the factors that really do influence achievement in the

classroom are predetermined for students. Therefore, it is important to look at

what can be altered in the classroom. That might be the relationship that is

created between teacher and student. The purpose of this study was to explore

the nature of teacher-student relationships, to discover if they have any impact

on students' school experiences, and to question if pre-service teachers are

being prepared to engage with students in a nurturing way. In this chapter, the

researcher will discuss a) this study's design, b) the participants and their

selection, c) the data collection process, and d) the data analysis strategy.

Design

The design of the study was qualitative in nature. The history of this

design is rooted in educational research. This approach focuses on the research

participants' views while in the context of their own environment. Creswell (2003)

asserted that in qualitative research, knowledge is based upon perspectives that

are created from multiple meanings from individual experiences." According to

Creswell (2008), this research is based on the notion that it is a civic

responsibility to use research in working to change and improve both individuals'

 45

lives and the impact of institutions. Creswell further explains that this type of

design focuses on the meanings that professionals construct through their

practice and because of their experiences. This researcher chose this mode of

design to do just that. She intended to both advocate for a better learning

environment for students and to promote change in a struggling education

system using open-ended questions that explored the experiences of teachers

and students in their own professional practices and educational environments.

The research technique used a modified van Kaam method described by

Moustakas (1994) based upon recorded and transcribed interviews using some

open-ended, some semi-structured questions and some follow-up questions to

capture the lived teaching experiences of teachers in relation with their students.

While a qualitative method was at the heart of the design for this study, a

phenomenological approach was used to collect data and illuminate a

phenomenon from the participants' own experiences. Phenomenology is

intended to capture the lived experiences of the research participants as well as

how they interpret those experiences. This method of analysis becomes

complex because phenomenologists believe that every individual enjoys a

different reality, dependent upon four different aspects of human experience

including spatial, corporeality, relationality, and temporality. While this might

seem to make definitive findings impossible to achieve, the intention is not

definition but emergent meanings through lived experiences. The conclusions

achieved were rendered from individual meanings weaved together into an

awareness of this phenomenon, without bias, presupposition or judgment,

 46

illuminating that meaning through self-reflection and intuition. The common

experiences of the research participants, described with openness and

authenticity, formed the findings. They were not in an experimental setting, but

instead spoke of real awareness based upon their everyday classroom practice.

The student survey was another component of the research design. The

survey aspect of the study was given out to 1200 local college students. All

freshmen and sophomore students were surveyed, in order to reach valid and

authentic results, and because they remain by age the closest to high school

students. The survey was based on a Likert type scale which included five

questions. In addition to those, one open ended question as well as a general

question about their grade point averages was also included. These questions

revolved around the teacher-student relationship and the students’ feelings about

its effect on their learning. The results of the survey were coded, analyzed and

merged with the results from the interviews to contribute to the findings of this

study.

The last component of the design of this study was a general inquiry of

three local universities' education programs. Information gathered spotlighted

whether those programs included any curriculum about building and maintaining

teacher-student relationships in the classroom.

Participants

The interview participants were 3 teachers from 3 different high schools.

These teachers were chosen purposefully due to the researcher's knowledge of

their classroom practices and commitment to educational development. The first

 47

teacher, KJ, is a white female, mid 20's, and middle class. She has been

teaching for 7 years. The second teacher, MK., is also a white, middle class

female. She has been teaching for over 30 years in a large suburban high

school. The third teacher, DW, is a white, middle class female as well. She has

been teaching for 20 years in a large suburban high school. All three teachers

were chosen because of their experience in the classroom and their prowess in

teaching multiple age groups, levels, and subjects. Their success does not only

rest with the best students, but they also enjoy high achievement from middle

and lower level students. Collectively, their classrooms are typically without

disciplinary issues.

The student participants surveyed were a group of 1200 college students

from a small private college. Participants were all freshmen and sophomore

students. They were selected from a student body which is generally white and

middle to upper class. Actual respondents totaled 505 students.

Data Collection

Data collection resulted from three different avenues and was triangulated

to produce a consciousness of the teacher-student relationship not known

before. The first was the personal interview with teachers. The three research

participants the researcher interviewed were asked three open-ended questions

(See Appendix A). The questions were purposefully open-ended so the

respondents could be fully engaged and probed for deeper responses than they

initially rendered. The responses to these questions were intended to reach

beyond the participants' initial answers and give the participants opportunity to
 48

wonder profoundly about their own practices and beliefs. Through this type of

questioning the researcher hoped to conceptualize the teacher-student

relationship and whether or not it impacts the students' perceptions of their

school experience and academic success.

The student survey was the second type of data collection. There were

seven total questions involved in the survey (See Appendix B). There were five

questions on the survey that dealt with the students' feelings about the

relationship they had with their teachers in high school. There was also one

open-ended question regarding their general feelings about high school and one

general question regarding their high school grade point averages. These last

two questions were to clarify their general sentiments about their educational

experiences and to reflect their general level of achievement.

The last mode of data collection was simple internet research regarding

teacher education programs at three local universities. The information collected

was regarding whether or not any of the curricula at any of the local universities

included anything regarding teacher-student relationship. The classes were

reviewed through the university academic catalogues. This information was

simply a barometer of typical teacher preparation programs and their intention

regarding teacher-student relationship.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was three-fold as well. First, the interview responses were

recorded, transcribed and thematically coded. The interviews were evaluated for

content to identify salient elements, manifested themes, and explore any

 49

emergent attributes of the central phenomenon of teacher-student relationship.

More specifically, the data was grouped by relevant experiences from the

research participants. Then the researcher clustered and categorized emergent

themes and core experiences. Finally, the researcher verified the themes

against the original transcription of interviews to ensure relevancy and

authenticity.

The survey responses were collected electronically and compiled by the

researcher. The survey was intended to identify a commonality in students'

feelings regarding their relationships with their teachers and how those might

affect their overall enjoyment of and their achievement level in school. The

surveys were analyzed by overall answers, by the open ended questions alone

and by filtering subsets of the questions to gain a clear understanding of the

responses based on particular subjects.

The last data analysis was simply to compare and compile the local

teacher education programs' curriculum regarding teacher-student relationship.

Analysis was based on whether each and/or all institutions provided training in

development of relationship between teacher and student, and if so, to what

extent that training reached. Individual classes were researched based on their

catalogue descriptions.

Purpose

The purpose of the qualitative phenomenological study was to gain

understanding of the teacher-student relationship phenomenon through the lived

leadership experiences of these teachers. The objective was to identify the

 50

common experiences that teachers have had regarding relationship with their

students and how that affects the general atmosphere of their classrooms and

their feelings of success in their practice. It was also intended to begin to

illuminate the importance of the teacher-student relationship in terms of positively

impacting students' experiences and achievement in school. The researcher

employed a qualitative phenomenological approach to the methodology which

resulted in findings that were based on the lived professional experiences and

practices of the research participants. These results will be relayed in Chapter 4.

 51

Chapter 4: Findings

This research was designed to begin to discover the effects of the

teacher-student relationship on academic achievement as well as attempt to

define the essential qualities of that relationship from both teachers’ and

students’ perspectives. These findings could impact pre-service teacher training

considering this subject has not been fully explored in some teacher education

programs. The methods used in obtaining data for this project were qualitative in

nature and three-fold. This researcher developed a set of three open-ended

interview questions and the interviews were conducted with three teachers.

Another set of data was gathered through a survey of a random sample of

freshmen and sophomore college students. This survey included five questions

which were scored using a Likert scale, as well as one open-ended question.

After collection, the data was analyzed with coding for the interviews and the

open ended survey question. A compilation of survey results was also analyzed.

An investigation of three local university education programs was also conducted

and integrated with the interview and survey results to arrive at these findings. A

phenomenological approach in analysis of the data was employed to arrive at

several different results. In this chapter the following will be discussed a)

interview results, b) survey results, and c) collegiate teacher preparation program

results.

Interview Results

Three teachers from average sized high schools were interviewed. The

teachers’ experiences levels differed. One teacher has been teaching only five
 52

years (KJ), another has been teaching for fifteen years (DW), and the third has

been teaching for over 27 years (MK). The three interview questions were: a)

what are the essential qualities of the teacher-student relationship, b) how is

each of those qualities manifested in your classroom, and c) how do teachers

come to learn the essential qualities of the teacher-student relationship?

Communication, safety, boundaries, and caring were resulting categories

gleaned from the first two questions in the interviews.

Communication.

Each teacher was adamant that communication was essential to the

teacher-student relationship. All three agreed that teachers should engage in

discussions outside the classroom so that students felt comfortable with the

teachers. All three commented that a comfort with the teacher must exist so that

the student would feel able to respond in class without judgment.

Communication seems to be part of the foundation between the student and

teacher on which learning can be built. Informality appeared to be an important

element in this communication. KJ said:

The way I do it in my classroom now is that if I see someone struggling

with a topic, I won’t talk to them in the middle of class and say hey, you

need to stay after to get special help. I’ll try to catch them between a

bathroom break or a prep and talk to them one on one without calling

attention to them because some students really get uncomfortable with

that.
 53

This informal approach suggests that it is essential for teachers to approach

students on a mutual level and in-person, so that the student is aware the

teacher is interested in his well-being. KJ suggested that a spontaneous and

informal approach to communication with students would “get the most out of

them, especially high school students…then they open up a lot more.” This

opening up could be a strategy to encourage students to have a personal

connection with the teacher that would lead to more interest in the classroom.

DW also delved into the importance of communicating with her students.

She revealed that she felt it was important to have personal conversations with

students, especially if they are struggling:

I will have those private pull-out conversations and say ‘now, what’s wrong

with you?’ I will be able to pick up on if something’s wrong. So the student

might say, ‘Well, my aunt got in a bad car accident last night.’ So I have to

figure that they must be upset and might want to talk about it. I am able to

cue kids into having a conversation with me which then turns into a

relationship. Many of my peers wonder how I do it and I just tell them that

I have an informal setting where I can talk to kids privately and make them

feel safe about talking to me.

Again, the informal setting creates the opportunity for a more personal

relationship which the classroom setting does not allow. It does open up an

avenue for the student to feel a different way about that teacher and possibly feel

more motivated or safe to try harder in class academically.

 54

MK pointed out that while communication is essential to the teacher-

student relationship, it has to be approached from both sides:

But at times, I’ve worked with students individually on what their career

goals are, what resources their families bring to them so that they can go

to college or not. …what experiences their family provides them. So, I got

to know how the kids see themselves, how they see their future, what they

want for themselves, what road blocks they see, when they might have

given up, the promises that see in their futures, what possibilities they

have. And you develop that when you have the one-on-one or when you

join in a student’s conversation, drawing a little bit more out of them or you

can talk to them by themselves about things you’ve heard them talking to

their friends about.

This kind of communication between teacher and student undoubtedly allows the

teacher to consider an approach to curriculum that matches a student’s

experiences, or family life, or interests – creating an atmosphere where that

student will feel connected to the subject matter and want to achieve more.

Research upholds that communication is an essential component in the

teacher-student relationship. Berry (2002), Wayne and Youngs (2003), Crosnoe,

Johnson and Elder (2004), and Thompson, Ransdell and Rousseau (2005) all

found that teachers who open up to students and create a bond through positive

interpersonal communication form a relationship with their students that impacts

the potential for higher achievement. Palmer (1998) suggests that current

culture tends to eliminate the subjective aspects of students and teachers, but
 55

instead, should focus on the authentic relation between the teacher and student

where the teacher is free to openly communicate with the student and vice versa.

The teachers interviewed in this study, despite their different teaching

experiences, offer the same conclusions and illuminate the importance of

creating a relationship with their students through conversation. All three

emphasized the essential nature of communication between teacher and student.

They suggested that the communication has to go beyond transferring facts from

one to the other, but instead be interpersonal strides toward relationship. Only

then can the teacher build an environment where students feel honored and

heard, and only then will those students be open to real learning.

Safety.

All three teachers indicated that safety was an essential element in their

relationships with their students. Safety is connected to, and actually a by-

product of the development of interpersonal communication. There are many

times when students do not feel safe in classroom environments. They face the

dangers of being judged by their teachers or peers, they feel the possibility of

revealing something that might hurt them, and they feel the uncomfortable

position of trying to be cool and act appropriately and do well in class. These

three components don’t always add up to the same results. The teachers

interviewed all believed that creating a feeling of safety in the relationship would

transfer to the classroom in positive ways. Trust, authenticity and respect all

contribute to creating a safe relationship between two people. Students have to

trust their teachers, teachers have to be authentic with their students in order to
 56

create that trust, and mutual respect has to be enjoyed between the two in order

for the relationship to feel safe. In a world where young people cannot depend

on the adults in their lives as exhibited by single parent homes, divorce rates,

religious leaders and family members who abuse and neglect them, teachers

must stand in and be counted upon. At minimum, the students must be able to

feel safe in the classroom in order to succeed in learning the subject at hand.

KJ defines that safety in the classroom as an environment in which

students should be able to be open and trusting.

I definitely feel that my students need to come to the classroom and feel

that they can learn and trust the environment that they are in…that they

can trust me as a teacher and they trust their classmates and that they are

safe. I need to provide that safe environment where they are willing to

open up … and not feel bad if they make a mistake or give their opinions

and not feel nervous if it’s the right answer or not.

KJ reflected on her own experiences as a student which has defined her feeling

on safety in a classroom:

I would get nervous and make a mistake and I remember someone saying

that I had a reading problem because I was stuttering so I lost respect and

trust in that teacher who allowed that to happen. I didn’t feel safe in her

classroom at all.

KJ’s comments demonstrate her memory of how an unsafe environment made

her feel, leading to a struggle in that class and how those memories propelled
 57

her to focusing on creating safety in the relationships between she and her

students.

DW focused on how the communication in the teacher-student relationship

has to feel safe in order to be effective. The student has to trust that his

teacher’s intentions are authentic. She relayed that she is a strict teacher, but the

students respond to her because they trust she is enforcing rules in their best

interests. They realize her rules are to keep the environment a safe one, both

physical and emotional. DW also revealed that safety was crucial in

communication with the students. If the student does not feel safe, he won’t be

open to letting anyone in. “I want them to feel safe. To be able to go where ever

they want in a conversation…I’ve had in depth conversations with kids and really

helped them and that turns into helping them do better in my class.” DW’s

comments illustrate that there has to be both safety in the physical environment

and an emotional safety between the teacher and student. “The students have to

feel comfortable in revealing who they are. That doesn’t happen overnight and

sometimes it doesn’t happen throughout the semester so there are lots of kids

who you don’t get that close to.” In order for that comfort to happen the students

must feel safe and be able to trust the teacher. The relationship must develop

into a situation where the student will reveal himself in order to learn. This is not

one way. The teacher also has to reveal herself. MK reflected on one she

reveals herself and still is able to connect with and establish a safe environment

for the students:

 58

Somebody asked a very funny question…she took something I said

literally and obviously did not understand what I was getting at. I laughed

out loud and said that it was sometimes funny when people don’t

understand things but it’s also ok. She knew I wasn’t laughing at her, I

was just laughing at the situation. She could feel safe in her confusion.

All the kids know I’ll be real with them and that makes them feel safe to be

real back.

The student’s acknowledgment of the teacher’s authentic self being revealed is

where relationship exists, where safety is created and where learning ensues.

Boundaries.

The notion of boundaries was an essential element in the teacher-student

relationship for all three interviewees, and the most difficult for them all to

articulate. As a group, they all expressed that a strict set of boundaries was

essential to a productive teacher-student relationship. However, upon being

questioned about how boundaries are manifested in the classroom those

boundary lines became cloudy. In any relationship, boundaries exist but

naturally flow, not in straight, thick lines, but more so in intangible, subjective

lines. This is what the interviewees realized through the discussions.

Traditionally, teachers are taught to establish clear boundaries with their

students. The interviewees seemed to struggle between their desire to articulate

what is customary for teachers to practice and what their practice really is. They

wanted to demonstrate their professionalism and ability to get the respect of their

students. But their words and their actions revealed something different. It was
 59

clear that all three interviewees struggled with this topic before and the interview

forced them to delve deeper into the meaning boundaries had in their

relationships with their students. Boundaries, by definition, separate people and

those who are trying to create meaningful relationships with students must be

able to establish healthy boundaries without marginalizing or demeaning those

who are being walled out.

KJ explained how boundaries played a role in her relationships with her

students:

Sometimes…they kind of try and go too far, meaning their questions like

‘Ms. J, do you have facebook?’ …that is, on their end, crossing [the line].

I started teaching when I was 22 and on my own and I wasn’t perfect and

sometimes I would feel like I shared too much. If I want their respect I

need to show them that I am the adult...I still have been working on that

myself. I always have to draw a very fine line between the openness and

the respect.

KJ’s comments demonstrate that while she feels that boundaries are essential to

the teacher-student relationship and to the success of the students in her

classroom, they are very hard to establish and maintain at the same time she is

hoping for a close relationship. An awareness of the importance of boundaries

between teachers and students is hardly a recipe for relationship between the

two. KJ struggles to understand where the line should be drawn, she wonders

where the boundary should be set – yet, at the same time, desires to let her

authentic self be revealed in the classroom. Revealing herself to her students is

 60

in direct conflict with establishing boundaries between them, but she naturally

feels the importance to connect with her students personally, therefore, opening

herself up.

DW is also challenged by the idea of boundaries between herself and her

students. “I don’t have in-depth relationships with my students. There is a

certain line that I will purposely stop at. I think it’s self-preservation.” That quote

came in the first five minutes of the interview. DW’s tone began to change when

she started talking about self-reflection and her strictness:

I am constantly pretty critical about why I am so strict. But, I am not that

strict on everything. I reconsider how I work and what really is my

practice. You know, something as simple as the kids have to wear a

school board issued uniform (to participate in Physical Education class). It

is shorts and a shirt and they have to purchase it. And some of our kids

can’t afford it and I struggle with that. How can I ask them to go and buy a

$22 piece of stuff that they well never wear again? My colleagues, they

are really strict about that. But I am strict, too. I am thinking about my

practice and why I’m ok with bending some of the rules.

DW clearly contemplates her boundaries with her students in terms of school

rules and classroom behavior, but the personal relationship boundaries seem

slightly clearer. DW laments that she simply does not have time to be too “in-

depth” with her students:

Time covers that…like, Oh my God, I don’t have time to do my work - - I

can’t keep having these off the clock conversations. We are governed by
 61

a bell. I had to tell a kid the other day, I’m sorry I can’t talk to you, I have a

meeting. This kid is in my office wanting help and I have to leave because

I’m expected at a meeting. …and that kills me, too. If there were no other

professional expectations there would still be a line. Like Facebook. It’s

just too dangerous. If a kid doesn’t like me I don’t want them to know

where I live. I don’t go to movies purposely to avoid students. I have to

remove myself from [the teacher] role…because I am so exhausted from

nurturing all the time.

DW clearly needs a boundary to exist in her relationships with students.

However, that line is muddled while she is in her school environment and she

generally draws a crooked line with a caring and nurturing hand. The boundaries

that exist in the relationships between DW and her students focus on what is best

for both individuals involved; peace of mind, safety, and achievement.

MK puts it simply and clearly at first. “One of the essential qualities in the

teacher-student relationship is that the students definitely need to see the

teacher as the teacher. The students need to see that the teacher has more

experience, more knowledge.” This is a definitive boundary between MK and her

students. However, the rest of the interview reveals in MK a much more caring,

connectedness between herself and her students and an intense desire for her

students to excel.

I have a basketball player, a male, who was just sitting there not wanting

to participate in the assignment and he is a good dresser and he is very

possibly interested in women’s fashion, so I just shared with him that when
 62

I was in college there was a male basketball player who wanted to major

in fashion design so they worked out an agreement with a neighboring

college so he could do that and play and he ended up designing

basketball uniforms, so you could do that if you wanted. He was happy

and shocked, ‘I could do THAT?’ You have to bend so that they can reach

the same outcome successfully.

MK’s response to her students’ independent needs and interests extends beyond

the typical teacher-student relationship where the teacher is in charge and gives

the same assignment to all the different students in class and measures all those

students equally.

All three teachers were very concerned that what they were stating in the

interview would not be publicly shared because of their lack of established

boundaries with their students. They all understood the professional expectation

in that area, but none seemed to adhere to it, or value it. They valued more their

students and how each rule and each boundary was best suited for each

student’s opportunity for success.

Alcott (1830), Boex (2000), and Palmer (1998) all wrote about the

importance of an open relationship between teacher and student – one that was

not consumed by distinctive boundaries. These boundaries, according to

Palmer, were impersonal and put constraints on the students’ potential.

Boundary, by definition, limits and divides. Teachers who are interested in

connecting with students are not comfortable with the notion, but the ideology of
 63

strict boundaries between teachers and students is age-old and still embraced by

the educational community.

Caring.

Caring was a theme on which all three interviewees focused. How the

caring was manifested in each of their individual classrooms was diverse, but the

essential concept that a caring relationship must exist between the teacher and

student clearly became the focus of all three discussions.

KJ was a bit guarded on the issue of care between herself and her

students. She did not seem comfortable delving into that subject as a teaching

practice. However, through many of her stories, she exhibited a caring attitude

towards her students.

Ms. J’s class is a safe place. I can escape if I’m getting picked on. You

know, I can go there and I can talk to her if I am upset. Even if I don’t

want to talk I know Ms. J will just do her thing and wont nit-pick at me.

This student clearly knows that Ms. J cares for him, otherwise he wouldn’t seek

her out in times of need. KJ had many stories like that one, which demonstrates

the value she places on caring between herself and her students. KJ is not quite

as experienced as the other two interviewees, and that might be the reason for

her lack of ability to articulate the value she places on caring for her students.

New teachers are not encouraged to connect or care, so they are not

comfortable with the discussion. However, her caring seeps out through her

stories and no explanations are needed. The caring relationship between KJ and
 64

her students is defined by her attention to them in their times of struggle. She

obviously cares about them, and they respond.

DW’s emphatic explanation of her strictness and attention to boundaries is

completely undermined by her thoughts on caring between herself and her

students. For DW, it all starts with the teacher’s intention and the students’

knowledge of it.

The number one thing is that the kids know that you are there for the right

reasons. They instinctively know you care. You are not there because

you have your summers off but you’re there to help them become better…

It isn’t always academic. It can be social. It can be emotional. My kids

say, ‘oh, you know, Ms. W., she’s tough, but she cares.’

DW understands that caring about the students takes time and attention.

I do a morning duty and it’s important to me that when they walk in the

door I look them in the eye and I say good morning, and I use their name.

It lights them up. We are told to try to build relationship on that duty and

just holding the door open for them and saying hello has changed the

whole dynamic of our educational environment.

DW’s relationship with her students is based on her intention to see each student

as an individual and allowing each one to see her as well. She allows them in.

“…there are days when they are like, Ms. W, are you ok? And I might be tired or

getting sick and they notice. It’s so tender.” In order for the students to notice

her she has to allow them to see her authentic self. This creates a relationship

based on mutual regard, which tends to bring along with it a responsibility to

 65

each other. The students therefore might try a bit harder in class and therefore

achieve more. DW takes the time to actually see her students. She notices

them:

I can just see them. Their posture. Their tone of voice. If they are wiped

out I can see it in their eyes. I literally find something to compliment them

on and it’s not just bullshit. …Just by looking at them. Like, ‘you look so

incredibly good…don’t you feel better because you’ve been working out?

Your skin, it’s beautiful, because you’re eating right.’

DW cares about her students, and notices them as individuals, and they care

about her. It is an environment in which the opportunity for learning and

achievement has been created.

MK described how she cares about students in one word. “Mercy.” When

she describes how she handles disciplining students who misbehave she

realizes she doesn’t exactly follow school protocol.

A kid asked to use the bathroom and then disappeared and didn’t come

back to class. Then next day he asked to go to the bathroom again, and I

said, ‘you know you disappeared yesterday, so I don’t think I can send

you.’ All of a sudden he leaned in and whispered, ‘you know, my dad just

left…’ and I remembered that something was going on in his family – I

couldn’t remember exactly what but it was there in the back of my mind.

Maybe he found someone and needed to talk or just get out of class. I

know the rules are that I should write him up, and I should get better at

that and I should have told him I would write him up next time. But you
 66

know, what I think the biggest thing of all is, is mercy. I believe what we

give out, we get back.

MK’s attitude is one of seeing the student as a human, and responding to his

needs in a humane way. An interesting point is that she says she has to get

better at following the rules, but most research points to a positive outlook on her

current treatment of students. Collier (2005) states that “Caring facilitates a

sense of connection from which spring countless opportunities for learning” (p.

252). Noddings (1992), as well, indicates that the school’s responsibility extends

beyond mere instruction. She suggests that teachers should be nurturers. MK

fits that bill. In dealing with the young man in her story, her ethic of caring

outweighs her attention to institutionalized rules.

Many researchers, Arnove (2010); Collier (2005); Ellerbroch and Keifer

(2010); Intrator (2004); Noddings (1992); Paciotti (2010) agree that an

environment that places emphasis on caring between the teacher and student is

one that will be more enjoyable for both parties and, as a by-product, create a

deeper potential for achievement.

The three interviews concluded with the final question, “How do teachers

come to learn about what is essential in their relationships with students.” All

three teachers were similar in their responses. They all agreed that experience

was a major factor in their knowledge of what is essential in their relationships

with their students. KJ was focused on trial and error and learning from mistakes

in her own practice. Being the youngest teacher in the study, she was very

focused on lesson planning and whether or not her subject matter was
 67

connecting with the students. This alone is a barometer for her to realize that

relationship building with her students is not a priority – yet. DW began her

answer by saying, “Not in their undergrad curriculum. I think it’s just how you’re

put together.” She is commenting on the natural demeanor of each individual

teacher. According to DW, then, the disposition of the teacher plays a major role

in her success with the teacher-student relationship in the classroom. MK also

responded with a similar sentiment.:

I think you learn it through experience. New teachers are learning it faster

than I did. We are opening up our classroom doors more, so that we can

see what other good teachers are doing and it becomes a mentoring

process. When I was in college they were teaching us the “don’t smile

until Christmas’ philosophy.” Now, there is more active learning by the

college students – they see real classrooms more.

MK acknowledges that she was unprepared to create relationships when she

first began teaching.

DW added that her continuing education has helped her to reflect on how

she treats her students:

I would not have gotten as much out of those classes if I had taken them

in my undergrad. I had to experience things first – to understand what I

was trying to learn. I sought out those classes because I felt I had a void

in that area. College students wouldn’t know if they have a void or not.
 68

While all three teachers realized that experience was important in learning

how to form positive teacher-student relationships, they also contemplated the

lack of attention to that subject in their undergraduate education.

Survey Results

While teachers are one side of the relationship equation, students are the

other. The survey regarding teacher-student relationship was delivered to all

freshmen and sophomore students at a local university. 505 responded. Of

those 505, 93% had high school cumulative grade point averages of 3.0 or

better. The five questions were scored according to a Likert type scale, with 5

points being awarded to the “completely agree” answer, 4 points to the “agree”, 3

points to “neutral,” 2 points to “disagree,” and 1 point to “completely disagree.”

The questions all revolved around the students’ experiences with

relationships with their teachers in high school and whether those relationships

positively affected their achievement. As seen in Table 1, 96% of the students

surveyed believed that the positive interactions that they enjoyed with their

teachers in high school were important. In addition to that, 76% of the students

felt that the positive relationships they had with their teachers directly affected

their performance in class. Another question centered on whether or not the

students surveyed felt “cared for” by their teachers in high school. While almost

half (49%) of the students responded that they shared personal information with

their teachers in high school, 81% of the students responded that they, indeed,

felt that their teachers in high school cared about their well-being. Eight-five

percent of the students surveyed responded that their ability to wholly enjoy
 69

school was related to whether or not they had positive interactions with their

teachers.

Table 1:

The responses to the open-ended question, “My relationship with my

teachers affected my feelings about school in general in the following ways”

 70

revealed four thematic ideas regarding teacher-student relationships. Interest

and enjoyment, comfort and safety, and caring were the three most common

responses to the question.

Most of the students mentioned in their responses that a positive

relationship with their teachers definitely contributed to enjoying school more

than if they didn’t have those relationships. The respondents described

situations that portrayed their relationships with their teachers directly affected

their level of enjoyment in class and in school in general. “In general, the better

the relationship with the teacher, the better the class. And the better the class,

the better the school day.” Typically, the students reflected that if their

relationships with their teachers were good, going to class and wanting to learn

came much easier. “Knowing you have a good relationship with a teacher and

knowing they enjoy having you in class makes all the difference.” If the

relationship is negative, the respondents felt that their enjoyment of school

lessened as well. “I was not interested in high school because I felt my teachers

showed no interest in me or my education, so I assumed, ‘why should I?’”

Comfort and safety was another typical response to how the teacher-

student relationship affected the students’ feelings about school in general.

Students at the high school age are fragile and in a state of transitioning from

childhood to adulthood. Usually, they are not prone to ask for help or reach out

to adults. However, the teacher-student relationship can influence the students’

feelings of comfort and safety, which does equate with a multi-directional effect

on achievement. Generally, how comfortable and safe the students felt allowed
 71

them to be more open to engaging in the class. “[A good relationship with my

teacher] made me feel more comfortable to ask for help and be more involved in

class.” Other students agreed with that simple sentiment. “I knew I could always

ask [my teachers] anything, school related or not, and it made me a better

student because I was much more open in class discussions and felt more

comfortable in the classroom setting.” “The more comfortable I felt in class the

easier it was to ask for help.” These comments were typical among the

respondents and demonstrate the feelings of comfort with their teachers as

contributing factors in their achievement. This student expressed the feelings of

discomfort in classes where the teacher-student relationship was not positive.

“With teaches that I didn’t have a good relationship with, I was often afraid to go

to them for help. I believed they would consider me stupid if I did.” This lack of

feeling safe with their teachers created a questionable and unstable environment

which translated into a “closing off” off interest and motivation in class.

Caring was the last common thread among the respondents. Many of the

students commented that knowing their teachers cared about them created a

feeling of wanting to do well in the class. They did not want to let their teachers

down, and felt a sense of responsibility to try harder in class. If they felt the

teachers cared about them as people they felt connected to the teacher and to

the class, and therefore were more engaged. This student put it most eloquently:

If my teachers showed they cared about me, I did really good in their

classes. Their personal concern for me as a student personalized their

teaching and made me feel like I was important. If a teacher didn’t seem
 72

to care or just was there to present material without making an effort to

connect to me as a person, I generally was not interested in the class

which made my grades not as good as they could have been.

Teachers who appeared to care, and who created relationships with students,

according to the respondents, created a situation that motivated students to try

harder.

If the teachers had a negative relationship with me, I didn’t even want to

be in that class or even come to school because I did not feel welcomed

or important. But the teachers who reached out to me and went the extra

mile to make sure I knew they were there for me and cared about me and

my success in school made me want to be in school, and even if I hated

the subject, if we had a positive relationship, it positively affected my

grade in class.

The vast majority of respondents answered similarly. Obviously, a caring teacher

affected the students surveyed in many positive ways in the classroom.

Collegiate Curriculum Results

A general survey of three local universities was conducted on line using

each university academic catalogue of classes and education certification

requirements. Of the three universities that were researched, no teacher

preparation coursework specifically focused on the teacher-student relationship.

The first university that was surveyed was a large, private, urban

university. Its focus, in many of its classes, was on cultural diversity and

incorporating that idea into the pre-service teachers’ future class curricula. They
 73

also had classes that concentrated on peer facilitation and mentoring. However,

nowhere in their catalogue was anything mentioned regarding facilitating the

creation of positive teacher-student relationships.

The second university was a large, public, urban institution. It also

focused its pre-service teacher curricula on cultural diversity sensitivity. It also

focused heavily on teaching methods in particular subject areas as well as a

weighty and intense preparation for the Praxis test. Again, nowhere in the class

descriptions for any of the pre-service teachers was any mention of preparing

them to create positive teacher-student relationships or what those relationships

should look like or what they could mean in terms of achievement.

The third university was a smaller, private, suburban university. Again,

this curricula focused on education in a cultural context and delved into diversity

as a key element in preparing teachers. It also required methods classes similar

to the other two universities surveyed.

All three universities offered Educational Psychology courses, which might

possibly cover the teacher-student relationship minimally. However, that was not

mentioned in the course description. For all three universities, the course

descriptions for Educational Psychology focused on child development, testing

and understanding different learning styles. These subjects remotely skirt the

topic of a relationship between the teacher and student, but the intention is not to

teach how to cultivate that relationship.

 74

Summary

The interviews, survey of students, and survey of collegiate curricula all

point toward a void in concentration on the teacher-student relationship. The

interviews reveal that teachers, while pressured to keep their distance from

students, wander towards creating a caring, safe, and comfortable environment

for them. The students, on the other hand, realize that a positive relationship

with their teachers positively impacts their interest in school and therefore their

level of achievement. The three universities’ curricula expose a lack of attention

to the teacher-student relationship for their pre-service teacher preparation.

 75

Chapter 5: Conclusions

Educational research has most recently focused on improving

achievement scores by attempting to improve teacher performance in the

classroom and considering reasons for the lack of achievement in the US. The

attempts to fix the educational system in the US have focused on high stakes

testing, improving teachers’ knowledge of their subject matter, and on equalizing

the educational opportunities for lower income students. This study attempted to

continue the trend toward a solution to the lag in achievement, but through a

different lens than what has been the norm. The researcher began by

questioning whether or not the teacher-student relationship affect, either

positively or negatively, the students’ enjoyment of school and their level of

achievement. The researcher focused her interviews with teachers on their

experiences with relationship between themselves and their students. The

researcher also surveyed post high school students regarding their experiences

in relationship with their high school teachers and how that affected their learning

in and overall enjoyment of high school. The researcher also considered the pre-

service teaching curricula of three local universities to speak to the possible void

in preparation regarding the cultivation of the teacher-student relationship. The

results of these three modes of questioning resulted in many implications for

teacher practice and for pre-service teacher education.

First, the researcher focused on obtaining a deeper understanding of the

teacher-student relationship and how that relationship affects the educational

experiences of students through teachers’ eyes. The interviewees dispelled

 76

traditional beliefs about the importance of distant relations between the teacher

and student and, instead, solidified the notion that a close relationship with

students is essential. The essential qualities of that relationship were, throughout

all three interviews, contained in three main themes; Communication, safety,

boundaries, and caring.

All three teachers agreed that communication is essential to a

positive teacher-student relationship. The idea of communicating with students

beyond the traditional question/answer in class, and beyond the accepted

discussions of classwork and grades, was one that was pervasive with all three

participants. The bond that was deemed essential for all three interviewers could

not take place unless personal communication was a goal for the teacher and

accepted by the student. The suggestion that teachers must communicate on a

deeper level with students becomes a complex issue here. Interpersonal

communication takes time, attention, and is considered risky behavior in the

profession of teaching. With personal communication, the traditional

separateness between teacher and student is eliminated, and a closer bond is

realized. While the benefits of this closer relationship are widely accepted

(Noddings, 1992; Paciotti, 2010; Palmer, 1998), it could be personally and

professionally costly. Real communication takes time, outside of the classroom,

outside of the school day. This time element, added to the regular work day of

the typical teacher can be draining on that teacher’s personal time and energy.

Typically society demands teachers to work without pay in preparation for

classes, in correcting tests, and in continued education. The additional

 77

responsibility to be interpersonally communicating with students might be too

much to ask personally and professionally. The benefits of that teacher-student

relationship are apparent in the survey of students. They believe that they

perform better in classes in which the teacher responds to the students

personally.

Safety is another theme that was prevalent in the teacher interviews.

Traditionally, students had a sense of safety and consistency at home, with their

families. However, because of the changes in family structure, changes in the

economy and technological influences students are typically finding themselves

feeling less sure about themselves and their worlds (Aikens &Barbarian, 2008;

Popenoe, 1993; Rouse & Barrow, 2006, Sirin, 2005). They are lacking self-

confidence and in order to feel comfortable enough to engage in a classroom

setting, the teacher is left with the responsibility to make that environment a safe

one for the student to take chances, risk questions, and thereby open himself to

learn more. The safety that the teacher provides must have a relationship as its

foundation. While communication and safety are essential elements in the

teacher-student relationship, boundaries in that relationship are still required and

revered.

All three teachers were adamant that while they believed interpersonal

relationships between teachers and students were helpful in their practices, they

also spoke of boundaries as an important detail of that relationship. Because of

the intergenerational nature of the teacher-student relationship, boundaries are

widely accepted as a definitive attribute. However, interestingly, while the

 78

participants began their discussions on boundaries with a determined attitude to

draw clear lines between personal and professional relationships, their

descriptions of their actual practice in the classroom indicated that their

boundaries were not clear and not driven by school rules, but instead driven by a

personal feeling and empathy for the students. Crosnoe, Johnson, and Elder

(2004), in a study regarding bonding between teacher and student, found that

intergenerational bonding was in fact associated with higher achievement. Their

study indicates what the participants feel. The boundaries established by

administrators do not always allow for a deeper connection between teachers

and students, and therefore might stifle learning potential.

Caring was an essential quality of the teacher-student relationship in all

three interviews. Two of the three participants spoke at length about being able

to really “see” the students, not just simply as students but as individuals who

have fears and hopes and obstacles that are not obvious to the uncaring, but

could very well distract those students from schoolwork or keep those students

from paying attention in class, obviously lowering the potential for high

achievement. They realize that knowing their students beyond their classrooms

is important in creating a relationship that will set the groundwork and opportunity

for learning and investigation. If the students feel cared for, and allow the

teachers to be caring towards them, the avenue for higher achievement is set.

This means that a teacher who has the ability and disposition to allow himself to

be open to his students, to connect with them, and to care about them, will

ultimately have a better chance to cultivate a more intense, deeper relationship

 79

that will carry over from the students’ lives into subject matter at hand. If a

student feels cared for, he essentially feels more safe, and therefore is more apt

to be open to new ideas and challenges in the classroom. This was also

reflected in the surveys. The respondents indicated that because their teachers

cared for them, they achieved more in class. The inherent problem with the

knowledge that caring between teachers and students helps achievement is that

all teachers don’t naturally possess the disposition to reach out to all students in

a caring and personal way, especially because the institution of education has

not embraced the idea. Some teachers are much more comfortable with a

distant relationship – simply vehicles to transport facts.

The student survey also suggested a positive connection between

achievement and the teacher-student relationship. The majority of the

respondents believed that their success in a class was at least, in part, because

of the relationship they had with their teachers. They believed that if their

teachers cared for them and connected with them personally, their motivation to

do well in class was increased. This means that a positive relationship between

teachers and students can affect the student motivation, interest in and

enjoyment of school in a constructive way, thereby giving those students an

opportunity to learn more and enjoy higher achievement.

Limitations

Due to the participants in the survey and the respondents in the interviews

this study has a limited generalizability. The students surveyed come from

generally the same socio-economic status, and are generally the same in terms
 80

of ethnicity. They all have been accepted to an academically rigorous university,

so their intentions in high school had to be similarly focused. The interview

participants were also very similar in ethnicity and background. Their only

difference was chronological age and teaching experience. These similarities

among respondents might sway the results towards one side. It indicates the

need for further research on this topic.

Implications

This concept of caring between teachers and students generates the most

impactful idea of this study. At this point, pre-service teachers are not given the

tools or strategies to foster positive, caring interpersonal relationships with their

students. This, according to a small investigation of local university education

curricula, is not a focus of many methods classes or strategies given to young

teachers. While the research indicates that a close bond between teacher and

student is essential in higher achievement, institutions of higher learning are not

on a similar page. Society is changing, family structure is changing, and the use

of technology is changing, therefore, the teacher-student relationship should be

changing as well. This study indicates the higher achievement awaiting students

who can enjoy a close bond with their teachers.

Currently teachers are given the responsibility to “fix” the lacking

achievement in the U.S. and education is under pressure to make sure its

graduates are prepared to be successful in society. The attempts at solving the

lack of achievement across the country have been many, but the successes have

been few. The teacher-student relationship, like the sun in its powerful impact on
 81

the earth, has the potential to be that elusive piece that could possibly impact

education in a most positive way.

 82

References

Alcott, A.B. (1830). Observations on the principles and methods of infant

instruction. Carter and Hendee.

Alcott, A. B. (1836). The doctrine and discipline of human culture.

from: http://www.americanunitarian.org/alcotthumanculture.htm

Aikens, N.L., Coleman, C.P., & Barbarin, O.A. (2008). Ethnic Differences in the

effects of parental depression on preschool children's socioemotional

functioning. Social Development,17(1), 137-160. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

9507.2007.00420.

Arnove, R. (2010). Extraodinary teachers, exceptional students. PhiDelta

Kappan. 92, 46-50.

Barrow, L. & Rouse, C. E. (2006). The economic value of education by race and

ethnicity. Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 14-27.

Bagley, W.C. (1907). Classroom Mangement: Its principles and

technique. New York, N.Y. Macmillan Company.

Bergman, R. (2004). Caring for the ethical ideal: Nel Nodding on moral

education. Journal of Moral Education, 33(2), 149-162.

Berry, B. (2002). What it means to be a “highly qualified teacher”.

Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from:

http://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/definingHQ.pdf

Birch, S. H. & Ladd, G.W. (1998). Interpersonal relationships in the school

environment and children’s early school adjustment: the role of teachers

and peers. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934-946.

 83

Boe, E. & Shin, S. (2005). Is the United States really losing the international

horse race in academic achievement? Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 688-695.

Boex, L.F. (2000). Attributes of effective economics instructors: An analysis

of student evaluations. Journal of Economic Education, 31(3), 211-227.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol

483.

Butchart, R. (1995). Discipline, dignity, and democracy: reflections on the history

of classroom management (AESA Presidential Address- 1994).

Educational Studies, 26(3), 165-184.

Collier, M. (2005). An ethic of caring: The fuel of high teacher efficacy. The

Urban Review, 37(4), 351-359

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, Conducting, and

evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Uppersaddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Crosnoe, R., Elder, G.H., & Johnson, M. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in

school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher

relationships. Sociology of Education. 70, 60-81.

Dillon, S. (2010). Top Test Scores From Shanghai Stun Educators. New

York Times. Retrieved from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?pagewan

ted=all

DeRosier, M. & Mercer, S. (2009). A prospective investigation of teacher

 84

preference and children’s perceptions of the student-teacher relationship.

Psychology in the Schools, 47(2), 184-191.

Duncan, A. (2010). Education Secretary Arne Duncan Issues Statement on the

Results of the Program for International Student Assessment. Retrieved

from: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-secretary-arne-

duncan-issues-statement-results-program-international-s.

Ellerbrock, C & Kiefer, S. (2010). Creating a ninth-grade community of care.

The Journal of Educational Research (103), 393-406.

Fram, M., Miller-Cribbs, J. &, Horn, V. (2007). Poverty, race, and the contexts

of achievement: examining educational experiences of children in the

U.S. South. Social Work, 52(4), 309-319. Retrieved from:

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/nasw/00378046/v52

4/s3.pdf?expires=1326391116&id=66660369&titleid=6449&accname=Ca

roll+University&checksum=E19AC69C669F92E0887BF2FFC031C378.

H.H. the Dalai Lama. (1999). The Heart of Learning. S. Glazer, (Ed.).

New York. Penguin Putnam Inc.

Intrator, S. (2004). The engaged classroom. Educational leadership, 62(1),

20-24.

Isaacson, W. (2009, April). How to raise the standard in America's schools. Time,

173(16), 32-36.

Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding Children’s school

adjustment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

 85

McDowell, K., Lonigan, C., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Relations among SES, age,

gender, phonological distinctness, vocabulary, and phonological

sensitivity. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50,

1079-1092.

Noddings, N. (1992) The challenge to care in schools. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Noddings, N. (2005) 'Caring in education', the encyclopedia of informal education

www.infed.org/biblio/noddings_caring_in_education.htm.

Paciotti, K.D. (2010). Caring behavior management: The spirit makes the

difference. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(4), 12-17.

Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Propenoe, D. (1993) American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and

Appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 527-533.

RSAnimate (production) adapted from Robinson, K. (speaker) (2010). Changing

educational paradigms. Retrieved from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U .

Sirin, S. R.(2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-

analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-

453.

Thompson, S., Randsdell, M., & Rousseau, C. (2005). Effective teachers in

urban school settings: Linking teacher disposition and student

performance on standardized tests. Journal of Authentic Learning. 2(1),

22-36.
 86

Thoreau, H.D,. (1892) Walden. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and

Company. The Riverside Press.

Wayne, A.M., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student

achievement gain: A review. Review of Educational Research. 73(1), 89-

122.

Wentzel, K.R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles

and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1),

287-301.

White, Emerson E. (1894). School management: A practical treatise for teachers

and all other persons interested in the right training of the young. New

York. American Book Company.

n.d. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. October 23, 2011. Retrieved from

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

(2010). Education secretary Arne Duncan issues statement on the results of

the program for international student assessment. Retrieved from:

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-secretary-arne-duncan-

issues-statement-results-program-international-s
 87

Appendix A

Teacher Interview Questions

1. What are the qualities of the teacher-student that you believe are

essential?

2. How is each of those qualities manifested in your classroom?

3. How do teachers come to know what the qualities of the student-

teacher relationship are essential?

 88

Appendix B

Student Survey

1. My personal relationship with my teachers is important to me.

2. I get better grades in classes in which I get along with the teacher.

3. I trust my teachers with personal information.

4. My teachers care about me.

5. When I have a good relationship with my teachers I enjoy school more

6. I think my relationship with my teachers affected my feelings about school

in general in the following ways:

7. My cumulative GPA in high school was in the following range:

3.75 - 4.0

3.5 - 3.74

3.25 - 3.49

3.0 – 3.24

2.5 – 2.99

2.0 – 2.49

Below 2.0
89